If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Before this escalates any further, I would like to remind everybody to keep comments aimed at posts and not other users.

Many thanks, Tiberios. We needed that, and I for one apologize for my part in things. Anyway, where were we?

Originally Posted by KEA

For future reference: the spokesman of how many members in this forum you believe to be?

Once again, that is misconstruing what I was saying. I speak *FOR* nobody but myself. I was speaking *of* (the comments regarding the subject of) not only myself but the others. There is a difference; much like how I might speak "of" President Obama's comments saying such and such would not be mistaken for me speaking *For* President Obama.

Please stop conflating the two. It does nothing good for the credibility of yourself or your argument.

Originally Posted by KEA

Aha... so accroding to that you think it would be ok when I call you piece of ing because your "argumentation" is just nothing but nonsense?

I would welcome you to TRY. However, first you would have to prove my argumentation is nothing but nonsense, which has not been done thus far. Don't put the cart before the horse; first *win* victory and then claim it.

Originally Posted by KEA

No, I won't do that, it would be against my better education and againts the rules of this community

Too late, KEA. If you think anyone was fooled or swayed by such an after-the-fact addition, you are wrong. And thus far, your "better education" has not manifested itself in a coherent or accurate argument. Or in much of anything on this thread, to be honest; and that's the only thing that matters at this point. We await in bated breath..

Originally Posted by KEA

(even though according to your logic, and that of all the others that seem to be inside you, doing anything is ok as long as the other one did first. That's something every primary school teacher would recognize: "but he started it, Sir!")

ENOUGH. Whatever point you were trying to make, you have failed and failed miserably. Particularly by invoking that example. The "lovely" rules of engagement most American school systems use about bullying are no valid example for a sound or moral value of enforcement. If anything, they are concrete evidence of THE PROBLEMS when such a system is not enforced properly. THAT is why- in case you ever noticed- a lot of controversy has been building over the school districts and those "primary school teachers" who have ABDICATED their responsibility to their students by being so permissive to bullying.

And the issue isn't exactly limited to American schools.

So congratulations, KEA. You have highhandedly destroyed your own argument and your own credibility by trying to foist on an ivory moral tower a system and a manner of thinking that has caused thousands of *innocent* children needless harm. One which in fact underlined why rogue states on the national scale (like Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, etc. etc etc.) could *not* be combated on the large scale or suitably punished without reciprocity. That takes some doing. *Golf Clap*.

And no, my position does not translate to allowing anything so long as the other side starts it first. There is a reason that the crimes of Germany (and the Prussian-led German Confederation before it) would not justify genocide against Germans in response. However, there is *great* value in recriprocity and proportionality of means (if not of results, which I flatly do not believe in.). If you throw a punch at me, I reserve the right to defend myself and punch you in the head twenty times. If you kick me, I resolve the right to kick you back, and do so harder and more frequently. If you lunge at me with a knife, your life is forfeit. And likewise I am sure you would have the right to do the same if I were the aggressor. That is how we keep every bit of fisticuffs from degenerating into something that leaves a body. That is how we keep every war from degenerating into something that leaves millions of innocents dead and countries ruined.

It is not a perfect system. In fact, I would go so far as to say it isn't really a *good* system. But it IS the best system we have yet come up with.

Originally Posted by KEA

So you read it but you didn't understand it.

Why not? Are you going to explain, or not?

Originally Posted by KEA

"nitpicking" *lol*

Apparently not. And pray tell me what purpose that little snippet was supposed to do other than further degrade the quality of your argument?

Originally Posted by KEA

I am not sure if the named persons are realy happy to be represented by your troll postings.

1. For someone identified as making "troll postings", I wasn't the one who added a snippet that amounted to ""nitpicking" *lol*".

2. And neither am I sure. Which is why I am glad that I am NOT representing them. Again vis-a-vis the "Speaking of" vs. "Speaking For" bit.

Originally Posted by KEA

But that's something you have to clear up with them.

If they choose to make an issue of it, I will. Until then, it is unnecessary. If they're really so bothered, don't you think they'll voice it?

Originally Posted by KEA

I guess we are talking about the 2nd World War in this thread and it neither happened during the Renaissance or Roman times.

Which excuses the blatant, overly naive, and overly uniform appeal to some uniform set of Western values that frankly didn't exist for most of history how?

Originally Posted by KEA

Looks like we are talking about two different things:

No, you only wish we were. Because it would give your argument the *vague* chance that it might have some validity.

Originally Posted by KEA

Allied mass bombing of German cities during WWII not was part of combat situations in which civilians got harmed,

No, it was in fact part of it. Obfuscation and sophism do not change how total war is fought, or the fact that total war by definition drags entire nations and their populations to war. For the same reason that those who starved because of blockades are not counted as being victimized by something out of normal combat or war. Nice try, Roll Again.

Originally Posted by KEA

but was deliberate killing of civilians and destruction of civilian structures.

It was both. Unfortunately for you, when the gloves come off (like the Germans etc. al. had done in WWII) the *former* takes precedence over the latter where there is overlap. That is why violence visited upon a civilian population as part of military operations is viewed as different from violence visited upon a captive or conquered civilian population, who have no means or defenses and are at the mercy of a conquering military. No amount of whiningly poor argumentation will change that fact.

Originally Posted by KEA

As a matter of fact, most bombs were dropped on Germany in the last month of 1944 and the few month the war went in 1945.

A: Most historians would disagree.

B: Even if that is true, how is that supposed to change anything? It doesn't. Just because one combatant is all but defeated (but refuses to acknowledge defeat! and thus end the Bloody War!) does not mean the moral dimensions somehow change or get skewed in some fashion. Again, say what you will, but there was no moral, ethical, or LEGAL obligation by the Allied command in Europe to cause the painful, unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people- via the leaving of the Reich's infrastructure for defense and terror intact and capable of resisting further until the end- in order to sate your preferences of the "right" way to kill people in war.

Originally Posted by KEA

Just take Dresden for example, which was leveled on 13th/14th of February 1945, with no allied or German forces of note around and a point when everyone, save Hitler, knew that the war was over.

That old candard? Sorry, but it is utterly and completely debunked. Dresden was a transit point between the Western and Eastern Fronts, and was playing host to a number of units strung out after the Battle of the Bulge , Market Garden, and the fighting for the Hurtgen Forest who were scheduled for transit to the East in order to confront the Soviet forces streaming Westward. The destruction of Dresden devastated the transport capabilities and largely marooned a good chunk of those units in the West where they were unable to have a significant effect on the war. Thus saving hundreds of thousands of lives by shortening said war. The fact that people who condemn the carpet bombings continue to trot out Dresden and especially *that* debunked rationale says more about their intellectual laziness and dishonesty than anything about the Allied carpet bombing campaigns.

Secondly, if throwing the tidbit "everyone knew the war was over" was supposed to impress upon us some changing moral mandate or alteration, it fails. Whether or not the Axis knew the war was lost is irrelevant, because they did not concede defeat and thus avoid the NEEDLESS DEATHS of hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of people. The Allies were under zero moral or legal obligation to "put on the kid gloves" because the Reich was losing the war, particularly when doing so would have strung out the war and caused even more suffering!

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by Turtler

Sorry to drop in for a bit, but I feel obliged to play Devil's Advocate and nitpick one point: the KPD as a whole on an institutional level could already be called thugs. Thalmann etc. al. had geared their party to revolutionary violence without completely going underground or withdrawing from the normal political process (in order to keep drumming up support).

I don't think they would've avoided taking power if the electoral process would've allowed them to that way, but I also don't think they ever seriously saw it as their primary road to power. Which was why they invested so much time trying to "win the streets" and spread revolutionary violence using their paramilitaries in the hopes of creating proper conditions for a Communist revolution (or coup). It's worth noting that one of the great, unheralded stepping stones on Hitler's road to Fuhrer was how in the 1931 he recalled Roehm from his military advisor "exile in the wilderness" in Bolivia and over the course of 1931 and '32 they led the SA to pretty decisive victory in "the streets" over the Communist and pro-Communist paramilitaries.

It's important because this basically crippled the KPD as a force that could dictate German politics... or stand in Hitler's way. They had invested so much in reovlutionary violence that they weren't prepared for someone being able to outdo them in it, and while they remained a potent electoral force (oh the irony) through sheer inertia and popularity, '32 basically saw them screwed.

Again, just a Devil's Advocate clarification, particularly since the Nazis absolutely did not care about which ones were actually involved in trying to destroy the republic or not. Just that the KPD was already heavily "thuggish" to begin with.

While you're not wrong on your characterization of KPD, I don't think there is a way to safely answer this. Given the fact that KPD did not enjoy the level of institutional tolerance and business support that the Nazis did, and that Hindenburg was unlikely to appoint Torgler as chancellor, and if we assume that Stalin thought the moment right, then only civil war comes to mind. If Stalin was ambivalent, as usual, then a mass cull of KPD members would be the reasonable result.

And that was my Devil's Advocate's Devil's Advocate (a term which I need to copyright one of these days).

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by Garbarsardar

While you're not wrong on your characterization of KPD, I don't think there is a way to safely answer this. Given the fact that KPD did not enjoy the level of institutional tolerance and business support that the Nazis did, and that Hindenburg was unlikely to appoint Torgler as chancellor, and if we assume that Stalin thought the moment right, then only civil war comes to mind. If Stalin was ambivalent, as usual, then a mass cull of KPD members would be the reasonable result.

And that was my Devil's Advocate's Devil's Advocate (a term which I need to copyright one of these days).

By and large I agree, and I think civil war would pretty much be necessary for a Communist assumption of power. However, I'm not sure what you're "answering."

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by KEA

Killing of civilians is not considered good by the western civilization's rules of war.

Now it isn't. In WWI and WWII, that was different.

Originally Posted by KEA

There also is no backdoor in the sense of "becomes good when the other sides does first", or "not is a violation when you are on the losing track", and certainly not "is acceptable as long as you are winning".

Whenever its morally right or good is completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by RubiconDecision

Those who protect the right of terrorists to have Free Speech enable the bombings of innocents.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by Vanoi

Now it isn't. In WWI and WWII, that was different.

Whenever its morally right or good is completely irrelevant.

I'd beg to differ on the whole, Vanoi. After all, a big part of what condemned Germany's conduct and that of its' allies in both wars was the needless murder of innocents. It's just that often times, it's recognized that while killing civilians is wrong and to be avoided, it's not totally possible to eliminate entirely.

The Germans just did it gratuitously and for no real military justification.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by Turtler

Right. Because "every historian" is included in those two citations?

Yes, its a standard number value, to be found in every book on the subject, including education text books and online assets* Its called facts, and is why every author uses these facts, as oposed to your uniformed false opinion that contradicts the facts.

All books contain the same values, there are none that support your false post.

Penguin Atlas of World History, the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945).

Including the one that explicitly says "Clarification needed" because it was obviously snagged from Wikipedia, the Lowest Common Denominator of Scholastic research?

I gave the author who wiki uses without a cite, you know, like you do when you know what your writing about instead of posting ignorant opinion and not understanding even wiki.

Last edited by DimeBagHo; January 05, 2013 at 05:08 PM.
Reason: Off topic.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Right, have been preoccupied elsewhere, but now I have to set this straight.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Yes, its a standard number value, to be found in every book on the subject, including education text books and online assets* Its called facts, and is why every author uses these facts, as oposed to your uniformed false opinion that contradicts the facts.

This entire paragraph is completely devoid of any worth whatsoever. It is basically the deluded, masturbatory fantasy of a copy-past artist who thinks ad-hominem is an actual substitute for reason and facts. It isn't,

The fact that you are so..... shall we call it "bold" as to claim that every author uses the exact same numbers shows that you have no idea whatsoever how the actual statistical compilation of these things went (example? There was a serious bureaucratic dillema over whether loaded bombers that went down over their targets should be added to the "tonnage dropped" statistics!). Nevermind how the actual scholarly world has parsed, hypothesized, added, subtracted, and generally wrangled over those numbers and others like them.

The only "Uninformed false opinion that contradicts the facts" is your own, and you are doing a horrid disservice to a very good book with some very good services by conflating it with your own hubris.

Quick Quesiton: does that or does that not count undropped bombs in crashed planes towards the total? Do you even know?

Originally Posted by Hanny

All books contain the same values, there are none that support your false post.

You are making yourself out to be an idiot. You clearly haven't read all books (and neither have I!) and you clearly are happy to ignore a huge chunk of them which so much as *contain different numbers* than yours. But if they don't conform to your own biases, they don't exist? Is that how it goes, Hanny?

Originally Posted by Hanny

Penguin Atlas of World History, the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945).

Please stop degrading good books by acting like they can excuse your behavior. They cannot. It's intellectual malpractice on the most basic level to claim that those are the only ones there are, and you are willingly walking into it.

Originally Posted by Hanny

I gave the author who wiki uses without a cite, you know, like you do when you know what your writing about instead of posting ignorant opinion and not understanding even wiki.

Wow. This is so incredibly moronic it doesn't deserve a reply, but yet I will give you one.

LISTEN for once in your life:

1. Using sources without citation is just moronic, because you cannot verify the veracity of such a claim. IF you're attempting to do this as some sort of ironic jab at the fact that I don't have every single source I've ever read and absorbed on hand to spit out with links.... it doesn't work. It just makes you look foolish and incapable of credible debate or even discussion.

2. If you seriously are claiming that "serious books" only spit out one set of numbers without variation, you are a dishonest Idiot. Nothing more.

3. I reserve giving out my sources to when I feel I am obliged to. Doing the same with you would be a waste of my time and a needless hassle, since if you have failed debating and basic research you would never even remotely appreciate it.

Last edited by Tiberios; February 24, 2013 at 04:12 AM.
Reason: Off topic removed.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

I am perplexed with the fact that conversation about number of killed german civilians by allied bombing turned to determing how many bombs were actually dropped by the allies... is someone going to calculate how many allied bombs were needed to kill one german civilian? other than that (which is ridicolous by itself) I don't see any other resaon for debate about how somebody determined the number, and what was considered a dropped bomb or not...

if there is no intention to write a doctorate about it, it is better to drop it... 'cause I can't imagine any of you has a clearance to the bomber command records? and even those should be observed with some healthy dose of suspition...

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Points of order, MM.

Originally Posted by Minas Moth

I am perplexed with the fact that conversation about number of killed german civilians by allied bombing turned to determing how many bombs were actually dropped by the allies... is someone going to calculate how many allied bombs were needed to kill one german civilian? other than that (which is ridicolous by itself) I don't see any other resaon for debate about how somebody determined the number, and what was considered a dropped bomb or not...

Firstly, I agree that it's perplexing overall, but it more or less started with someone taking a look at the German casualty statistics, looking at the completely wrecked pictures of German cities, and saying "I think the former are too small to have been reasonably be called for the latter!" Which means that this was never an overly civilized or wholly objective debate. We brought out the usual statistics that proved that no, there isn't the most efficient direct link between "amount of bombs dropped/stuff blown up" and "amount of population killed by bombs." Since there wasn't much left to be talked about there since the OP got the tripe blown out of him by evidence, things went on to other topics that we discussed here, including what you say. And since it was still a discussion, we carried on.

The amount of munitions you had to drop in order to kill one civilian was a relevant topic (especially vis-a-vis the difference between the Germans/European Axis and Japanese) and was in the process of getting prepped up, but it wasn't really put on the table due to the waving back and forth and the various agendas.

Originally Posted by Minas Moth

if there is no intention to write a doctorate about it, it is better to drop it... 'cause I can't imagine any of you has a clearance to the bomber command records? and even those should be observed with some healthy dose of suspition...

Secondly, it might've been better to, given how easily the OP's thesis was blown out of the water, but sicne there was still discussion that wasn't completely off the wall it carred on.

Thirdly, you'd actually imagine wrong; you actually can have clearance to the Bomber Command records, and moreso to other people who have clearance to and more resources to look through more than we civilians do. IIRC the archives have already been declassified/starting to be opened up, and even before than there were trickles of info leaking out. I have more than a few things that cover it myself, and I'd be happy to share 'em with you (preferably on PM).

And agreed, they should be treated with a healthy dose of suspicion given the sheer number of complicating factors here (debating counting bombs in shot down planes? Really?), but since they're some of the best we have, they can at least be used as part of our corpus of sources.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Something the numbers dont include are the dutch, french, etc. Cittizens of german occupied lands, who also were (sometimes accidentelly and sometimes on perpose) bombed, that would increase the numbers drasticly

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

I don't understand why some people in this thread are so keen to justify the indiscriminate bombing of the German cities because the Axis has done the same before. What we should determine is if the bombings had some military purpose or they were just a sort of vengeance through the same terror tactics used against the population.

In reality from a purely military perspective they were largely ineffective and the resources used on these missions could be better spent attacking targets that had more military value.

The military futility of the bombing should have been even more clear to the Allies looking at the complete failure of the Blitz, yet they had gone even more enthusiastically through the same mistakes.

In reality even if the Allies hadn't reached the same monstrosity of the Nazi death camps at the same time their mindset wasn't so different when they were evaluating the value of harm done to the civilians.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Civilians is such a loose term in a Total War. Morally loose, loose in general.

In fully industrially mobilized nations any civilian could potentially be aiding the war effort and thus an enemy. Direct battles don't work as we all know, thus the hamstringing of the logistical set ups are the new flanking maneuvers, and an effective one a that - a modern army is only useful as long as they are supplied. After the development of the breech-loading rife and with the advent of aircraft it could argued the targeting of civilians ("factories") becomes the rational option.

There is no suspicion whatsoever, war is industrial rather than skill based between developed nations, you do not defeat the army, they are too large - you defeat their will to fight. This is maximal war people, people say it's only existed since the French Revolution but I think it's always existed. It would make an interesting thread actually - Has Total War always existed or is it a modern development?

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by Sphere

A bit of a tangent, but the Allied strategic bombing offensive in Europe's only real success was the intense men and material losses it caused to the Luftwaffe.

While dramatic, the area bombing of cities wasn't terribly successful at hampering the Axis war machine which was able to increase rates of production throughout the war. Nor did it "break the will to fight" of the German people. Even less successful was the tactical use of horizontal bombers on the battlefield. Really the Allies resorted to "area bombing" because they couldn't accurately hit much of anything smaller than a city from the high altitudes at which the big 4 engine bombers needed to fly at to survive.

What it did do, however, was draw a large number of Axis planes men and other equipment back to the west where the US and British proceeded to grind them up in an aerial war of attrition. The loss of experienced German pilots was particularly heavy. Also, bomber escorts and fighter bombers ranging over the countryside had a noticeable effect the logistical infrastructure.

But in the end the destruction of Axis urban centers did little to advance the war effort.

not just drawing back the Luftwaffe, but something like half a million German soldiers were held back to garrison the cities, man AA defences, jumpstart recovery and restoration, etc.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by Sharpe

Civilians is such a loose term in a Total War. Morally loose, loose in general.

In fully industrially mobilized nations any civilian could potentially be aiding the war effort and thus an enemy. Direct battles don't work as we all know, thus the hamstringing of the logistical set ups are the new flanking maneuvers, and an effective one a that - a modern army is only useful as long as they are supplied. After the development of the breech-loading rife and with the advent of aircraft it could argued the targeting of civilians ("factories") becomes the rational option.

There is no suspicion whatsoever, war is industrial rather than skill based between developed nations, you do not defeat the army, they are too large - you defeat their will to fight. This is maximal war people, people say it's only existed since the French Revolution but I think it's always existed. It would make an interesting thread actually - Has Total War always existed or is it a modern development?

In many ways you're right, though from what research I've done on the subject (admittedly it isn't very extensive), the German morale was not noticeably altered by the Allied bombing campaigns. Now, as to the efficacy of the bombing campaigns, this is, as we have seen here, a subject of some debate. However, the most compelling conclusion I've seen presented on this topic in the historiography is that it was the American daytime escort bombing raids that were more effective in their goal, which was primarily to hit German infrastructure and industrial capacity. The British nighttime raids appear to have been significantly less effective, and more costly in terms of British air casualties and German civilian casualties. Again, I am not the most learned on the subject. I've only briefly examined it on the periphery of my own scholarly research focus.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by KEA

Firebombing cities with millions of inhabitans on a grand scale is not what usually is considered as "civilized warfare", not even by American or British standards.

This is 70 years ago. Most of the people commanding the armies in WW2 had served in WW1, I think people often forget that. We are talking about a whole generation of people who at the age of 19 or 20 saw entire rows of their friends gunned down by machine guns and blown to pieces by mortars. You cannot think of the 1930s and 1940s as a 'civilised' time to be compared with today, just because they had electric lighting and talked like us. In fact I think we in the 21st Century have more in common with our ancestors from the 19th Century rather than the Early 20th Century, it was such a messed up time. You shouldn't blame the Allies for their actions any more than you should blame Genghis Khan for his, especially considering who we were fighting against. Frankly I think a lot of Germans would probably have preferred to be killed than have to live with the guilt that they had voted in Hitler.

Re: Suspicious Numbers of German Civilians Killed by Allied Bombing

Originally Posted by Principe Alessandro

I don't understand why some people in this thread are so keen to justify the indiscriminate bombing of the German cities because the Axis has done the same before. What we should determine is if the bombings had some military purpose or they were just a sort of vengeance through the same terror tactics used against the population.

In reality from a purely military perspective they were largely ineffective and the resources used on these missions could be better spent attacking targets that had more military value.
The military futility of the bombing should have been even more clear to the Allies looking at the complete failure of the Blitz, yet they had gone even more enthusiastically through the same mistakes.
In reality even if the Allies hadn't reached the same monstrosity of the Nazi death camps at the same time their mindset wasn't so different when they were evaluating the value of harm done to the civilians.

I find it droll that the only exception between the Axis and Allies to be on par with each other is the death camps, other than that their mechanics, of conducting war were similar or comparable? I hope that I am misinterpreting your intended point.
As much as I believe that Air Marshall Harris was a bit over focused on proving his point (area bombing), his Bomber Command did in conjunction with the American Army Air Corps dismantled the infrastructure of Germany in 44-45 which was the point of the exercise. Area bombing was not picked as first option but rather a last one given the RAF losses in daylight raids suffered in 40-41. War is not a game there are no points for coming in second place.